COVID-19

[ea6bflyr]

Because The Science(TM) is different here than in Peru and Israel.

So you didn’t read the published article?….where it says:
”Authors' conclusions: Based on the current very low- to low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID-19. The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality. Several studies are underway that may produce clearer answers in review updates. Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of well-designed randomized trials.”

BTW, the article you posted shows that Ivermectin is not a cure for Covid.

I have a sneaking suspicion it’s for the same reason that Dr. Fauci castigated the Sturgis bike rally yet said nothing about Lollapalooza and Barack Obama’s 60th birthday party. Turns out political science is the science that rules them all.

Is Ivermectin a safe way to fight COVID-19 as Delta-variant cases rise?

Repurposed, inexpensive drug Ivermectin may help in battle against COVID-19.

www.clarkcountytoday.com

Please stop deflecting…

 

[SlickAg]

So you didn’t read the published article?….where it says:
”Authors' conclusions: Based on the current very low- to low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID-19. The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality. Several studies are underway that may produce clearer answers in review updates. Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of well-designed randomized trials.”

BTW, the article you posted shows that Ivermectin is not a cure for Covid.



Please stop deflecting…

Your NFO vision must have missed some of the graphs in there. The proof is in the pudding. That article was simply to show that there’s different opinions and despite the lack of “good” studies, there seems to be real world evidence that it’s a useful therapeutic. If you’re not open to discussion, why did you ask your question in the first place?

“Studies”, high quality ones, also showed that getting vaccinated prevented infection and subsequent transmission of covid. How’d those studies turn out? Oh yeah, they’re the same ones being used to mandate the vaccine now. Whoops! BuT tHe ScIeNcE cHaNgEd Bc Of VaRiAnTs!!! Uh huh.

And lastly, if you don’t think the lack of accepting natural immunity on the same level as vaccination and the lack of open discussion about using drugs to lessen symptoms and mortality rates isn’t political, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

 

[scoolbubba]

The proof is not in the pudding. High and low quality studies don't mean one is garbage and one is not. The quality of a study has to do with the accuracy of the mathematical correlation, not whether there is one or not.

My understanding of what determines a low quality study may have a strong positive correlation, but the percentage increase in X outcome isn't accurate to within Y digits.

 

[SlickAg]

The proof is not in the pudding. High and low quality studies don't mean one is garbage and one is not. The quality of a study has to do with the accuracy of the mathematical correlation, not whether there is one or not.

My understanding of what determines a low quality study may have a strong positive correlation, but the percentage increase in X outcome isn't accurate to within Y digits.

I agree. I was talking about the graphic that showed the significantly lower number of deaths in the Peruvian states that administered Ivermectin as a treatment.


Further, if I were hospitalized, I would MUCH rather try any approved therapeutic medicine than be intubated. Some of us might be forgetting the real world data from earlier in the pandemic that being intubated in a hospital setting was essentially a death warrant. I’d think the side effects from Ivermectin, which has had an extremely low rate of adverse consequences when administered for its primary purpose, would skew medical professionals away from intubation. Unless, of course, states are threatening doctors with having their licenses revoked. Which I know has happened with other drugs.

 

[scoolbubba]

I agree. I was talking about the graphic that showed the significantly lower number of deaths in the Peruvian states that administered Ivermectin as a treatment.

View attachment 31931
Further, if I were hospitalized, I would MUCH rather try any approved therapeutic medicine than be intubated. Some of us might be forgetting the real world data from earlier in the pandemic that being intubated in a hospital setting was essentially a death warrant. I’d think the side effects from Ivermectin, which has had an extremely low rate of adverse consequences when administered for its primary purpose, would skew medical professionals away from intubation. Unless, of course, states are threatening doctors with having their licenses revoked. Which I know has happened with other drugs.

Meant to quote ea6b; I agree w/ you. There's a lot of correlation between better outcomes in both prophylactic use and treatment with ivermectin, but very few large randomized controlled trials.

anecdotal evidence from a friends mom who was in the hospital with very low blood oxygen levels and a lot of crud in her lungs was a 24 hour turnaround after she browbeat her doc to give her ivermectin off label.

She's back to normal now.

At least give it an honest shot instead of raising safety concerns about a drug that has had 4 billion doses safely administered since its invention.

 

[ea6bflyr]

Your NFO vision must have missed some of the graphs in there.

Being a former NFO has nothing to do with the discussion, so keep your sideways comments/jabs to yourself. It’s comments like this that take away from your argument.

The proof is in the pudding. That article was simply to show that there’s different opinions and despite the lack of “good” studies, there seems to be real world evidence that it’s a useful therapeutic. If you’re not open to discussion, why did you ask your question in the first place?

So you’re dismissive of this peer reviewed, published study with actual data (not opinions) but you’ll gladly take anything that proves your point?

The bridge between the doctor in the video proclaiming the panacea of Vitamin D loading with Ivermectin and the inconclusive studies tells me that it’s not the fix-all for COVID as he presents in the video. Therapeutic uses, by all means….but not as a preventative use.

“Studies”, high quality ones, also showed that getting vaccinated prevented infection and subsequent transmission of covid. How’d those studies turn out? Oh yeah, they’re the same ones being used to mandate the vaccine now. Whoops! BuT tHe ScIeNcE cHaNgEd Bc Of VaRiAnTs!!! Uh huh.

Not familiar with the studies your quoting. Please cite those studies.

And lastly, if you don’t think the lack of accepting natural immunity on the same level as vaccination and the lack of open discussion about using drugs to lessen symptoms and mortality rates isn’t political, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

This was not even part of the discussion, but if your so for natural immunity, then maybe you should go hang out in a COVID ward and earn some immunity. You certainly talk the talk, but I doubt you’ll walk the walk.

 

[taxi1]

“Studies”, high quality ones, also showed that getting vaccinated prevented infection and subsequent transmission of covid. How’d those studies turn out?

You actually linked to a tweet thread about Iceland showing evidence of reduced transmission & infection in vaccinated, even with the Delta variant.

This is not a study, just had empirical evidence that vaccines work. Houston GA, not TX.
Still a lot of ventilator use out there too. And ECMOs.

https://twitter.com/houstonhealthga?s=21

 

[SlickAg]

Being a former NFO has nothing to do with the discussion, so keep your sideways comments/jabs to yourself. It’s comments like this that take away from your argument.


So you’re dismissive of this peer reviewed, published study with actual data (not opinions) but you’ll gladly take anything that proves your point?

The bridge between the doctor in the video proclaiming the panacea of Vitamin D loading with Ivermectin and the inconclusive studies tells me that it’s not the fix-all for COVID as he presents in the video. Therapeutic uses, by all means….but not as a preventative use.


Not familiar with the studies your quoting. Please cite those studies.


This was not even part of the discussion, but if your so for natural immunity, then maybe you should go hang out in a COVID ward and earn some immunity. You certainly talk the talk, but I doubt you’ll walk the walk.

Your obsession about my private medical history and decisions take away from your argument. Whether or not I’ve elected to receive the vaccine or have already had covid has nothing to do with the discussion.

Disregarding natural immunity towards covid is anti-scientific. It exists. The reason why “the experts” are calling for everyone to get a vaccine, regardless of prior infection, is because they “don’t know how long natural immunity lasts”. Looks like it’s better than the vaccine, actually.

Natural infection vs vaccination: Which gives more protection?

Nearly 40% of new COVID patients were vaccinated - compared to just 1% who had been infected previously.

www.israelnationalnews.com

The studies to which I was referring are the ones literally used to grant the EUA. The CDC Director and Dr. Fauci didn’t get in the front of the American people with the claim that the vaccine prevented people from spreading the virus out of thin air, did they? If the vaccine were NOT so effective, how would the DOD justify mandating it for all service members?

Funny how you can take a jab at me and my belief in natural immunity by telling me to go hang out in a covid ward but I can’t make a joke about NFOs needing glasses.

 

[SlickAg]

You actually linked to a tweet thread about Iceland showing evidence of reduced transmission & infection in vaccinated, even with the Delta variant.

This is not a study, just had empirical evidence that vaccines work. Houston GA, not TX.
Still a lot of ventilator use out there too. And ECMOs.

View attachment 31934

https://twitter.com/houstonhealthga?s=21

But were they wearing masks?

Anyway, we’ve gone from “vaccines work at preventing serious illness and preventing hospitalization” to “yeah you might go to the hospital but at least you won’t be in the ICU”? I’m just trying to keep up with the science here. And if vaccinated people start dying, what’s our move then?

And yeah, I understand the difference between hospitalized with and hospitalized from, but if it’s okay to differentiate now, than we’d need to go back and do a LOT of case count and death count editing.

 

[taxi1]

Whether or not I’ve elected to receive the vaccine or have already had covid has nothing to do with the discussion.

Skin in the game. Action talks and bullshit walks.

And if vaccinated people start dying, what’s our move then?

It will be because of the "successful" gain of function experiment being conducted by the unvaccinated, resulting in a new variant. At which time we'll be back to square one and need a new vaccine.

 

[SlickAg]

Skin in the game. Action talks and bullshit walks.

It will be because of the "successful" gain of function experiment being conducted by the unvaccinated, resulting in a new variant. At which time we'll be back to square one and need a new vaccine.

How do your propose that we go about making sure people in this thread have “skin in the game”. And not just this thread, but all of AW? How do we ensure that only “qualified” people get to comment?

So these 106 people in Massachusetts died from a new variant? I guess we need a new vaccine now, right?

Mass. updates data on breakthrough infections, adding 2,232 cases, 50 hospitalizations, and 6 deaths - The Boston Globe

The figures on breakthrough infections among the vaccinated were released for the first time in the state’s daily vaccine progress report. Updates are expected every Tuesday.

www.bostonglobe.com

 

[Hair Warrior]

I guess we need a new vaccine now, right?

We probably do… because of the high likelihood that this virus was at some point gene-manipulated in a Chinese lab (with help from US NIH funding) to be more transmissable.

 

[FrankTheTank]

Flatten the curve, masks, vaccines, follow the science, close everything down… rinse and repeat. The CDC and NIH are clueless. Fauci and gang should be fired and replaced with some competent doctors and scientists! And maybe some immunologists and virologists!

 

[taxi1]

I guess we need a new vaccine now, right?

They're getting ready, you can bet. We know the virus evolves, and if it can find a way to get around the vaccine, of course it will. It just needs big pulses of virus coming in from the anti-vaxxers and free riders.

In a statement, Pfizer said it and BioNTech "expect to be able to develop and produce a tailor-made vaccine against that variant in approximately 100 days after a decision to do so, subject to regulatory approval."

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Skin in the game. Action talks and bullshit walks.

It will be because of the "successful" gain of function experiment being conducted by the unvaccinated, resulting in a new variant. At which time we'll be back to square one and need a new vaccine.

Vaccinated people are also getting infected and transmitting the virus, but I guess they aren’t a risk for enabling scary variants. Just more “us vs them” bullshit. Here’s another pat on the head for your decision to get vaccinated out of self interest. The virus isn’t going anywhere. You were wrong saying masks will “end this”. You were wrong saying vaccines will “end this”. There are billions of people to get infected, including a lot more vaccinated people.